User talk:Anne Landman

BOA
Hi Anne,

I just moved part of BOA to a subsection. I did paraphrase some copied & pasted text (just to help to flow of language, imo). Otherwise, all of the original sections and subsections should be in tact. See also Bank of America financial crisis.

The original article was 56K and the subsection alone was 33K. I also thought it was a little hard to follow, probably due to many different editors. I also standardized the formatting a bit.

I did the same thing to JP Morgan Chase, which was also very long. I am guessing you may want to take a look at that as well. The subsection is at JP Morgan Chase financial crisis. I added the link to the subsection under where the original section was in JP Morgan, like in the BOA article.

Both of the subsections have the Real Economy Project & Global Corporations badges.

Lisa L. 1/11

11/12

further corrections of third person voice

Anne, I posted a query for you at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Associates_for_Research_into_the_Science_of_Enjoyment

Cheers --Bob Burton 19:11, 12 November 2006 (EST)

Anne, It would appear that the Tom Harris listed for this tobacco industry document is the same as the Tom Harris profiled in SW. If you come across anything related, please let me know. Thanks. Artificial Intelligence 12:26, 21 November 2006 (EST)

Pic size
Hi Anne, I noticed you wondered (re Carol M. Browner) what pic size was best. Generally, if the original allow it, I opt for 200 pixels wide. Sometimes, depending on the picture, 250 pixels. Much bigger than that though and it starts to look a little big on the page. If you need a hand tweaking a pic let me know. cheers --Bob Burton 03:48, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Conflicting articles
Yesterday I corrected the spelling error in the title of your article The Delcine in the Rate of Growth of Marlboro Red (Delcine), moved the material to The Decline in the Rate of Growth of Marlboro Red (Decline) and deleted the incorrect article only to see this morning that you are again using the original article (which I thought I had deleted).

Once again, I moved the most recent material from the incorrectly titled article to the corrected titled article and deleted the article with the incorrect title. Artificial Intelligence 07:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Catgeory Tag
Hi Anne, A query on a TW catgory tag. These two files are the only ones that have the catg tag "Corporate Affairs" (a category that is not yet activated)- http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=J._Brana http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ellen_Merlo

I'm not quite sure how you intended to use the catg It may be that you wanted a separate category for Philip Morris Corporate Affairs personnel (which would necessitate a change to the tag). Corporate Affairs as a generic term is often used to describe a subset of PR, but I suspect that is not what you intended. Or perhaps those two could just be added to the existing public relations professionals category. But it all depends on what you were thinking on what would be included in that category. cheers --Bob Burton 23:52, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Hi Bob. I felt Philip Morris Corporate Affairs needed an article of its own, since it was the department responsible for implementing so many of PM's propaganda efforts over the decades. Now that you point it out, using it as a category is probably not really appropriate. Better to simply use it as a link to an article about PM Corporate Affairs? There is a section about PM Corporate Affairs Department, I think, in the article about Philip Morris on SW. I think PMCA is also mentioned in the article about Steven C. Parrish. Would it be best to have a completely separate article on PMCA Department? --Anne

And a Couple more Catg Queries
These three category tags could also do with renaming
 * Defendants ?(1 member) - perhaps Tobacco industry defendants (defendants is a generic term - somnetimes the tobacco industry were defending a case, sometimes it was govt agencies etc)
 * Defense ?(1 member) - perhaps Tobacco industry defense otherwise this will be confused with the Defense industry or defense policy (also there should be a direct quote re the Ostrich defense if there is one)
 * Defense witness ?(1 member) - again better as something like "tobacco industry defense witness" (Defense witness doesn't indicate who it is for or avoid the confusion with the defense industry.

Hi Bob, good suggestions all. I think these categories may have been added somehow when the articles were ported over from TDO. I'll try and search for these and fix them. If I have trouble, I'll ask you how to get to them. --Anne

cheers --Bob Burton 00:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Need to check this
Hi Anne, see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alexander_F._Wilson changes. There wasn't an online ref for the citation so I couldn't check the original source easily.--Bob Burton 20:01, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Hi Bob. I investigated AF Wilson and changed the article to reflect what I was able to document about him based on what I found in the documents. I eliminated the unreferenced statements that appeared on his page. Anne

Article queries
Hi Anne,

Just been working through your recent additions:
 * http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Toxic-Tobacco_Law&rcid=143966 - this really needs a lead summary par -- I wasn't clear whether this is a current proposal or not (so that would be worth clarifying).
 * http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Place_nicotine_under_the_Controlled_Substances_Act - is this an article by K.H. Ginzel and posted by you? Or summarizing a proposal by Ginzel and just listing him as a contact for those who have queries? This article is not quite the normal style of our article so I'm just trying to figure out the best approach. cheers --Bob Burton 00:21, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Hi Bob. I re-arranged the Toxic-Tobacco article to put the summary up front, and changed the tense to make it more apparent that this is a proposed policy, and not a current bill.

Heinz Ginzel sent around his proposal by email, and gave me permission to post it in the End-game section of Tobaccowiki. I copied and pasted the relevant portions of his email to make the article, doing some edits to make it fit better into our format. What did I miss?

P.S.- So far all the end-game proposals except Enzi's are just proposals. Enzi has actually introduced a bill. I got the info about it from Sen. Enzi's office via email. --Anne

Hi Anne,

the page General is one that could do with renaming but I wasn't sure where you want to take it so I haven't renamed it. As it stands some doing a search for a definition of a military "general" is likely to land on the page. We need to make clear that it relates to the tobacco industry. --Bob Burton 04:10, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Page title
Hi Anne, I'm thinking that the "Oklahoma contribution?" page needs a more specific title to make it explicit what it is referring to. I'm not sure whether you have a series of similar articles planned; in which case consistency will be needed. --Bob Burton 16:04, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Bob, That was the title of the actual document, which I generally like to use if it's short enough. However, due to the potential for conflict I can change it to be more specific. --Anne

Abe?
Hi Anne, I'm not sure of the origin of the article on Abraham Lincoln in TWiki. I hit the search button and it only refers to the Abraham Lincoln School of Medicine. It is perhaps worth have a sentence or two on why Abe gets a mention in TWiki and flagging lines of inquiry that others might want to expand on. Just a thought. --Bob Burton 06:30, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Bob, - the only mentions I could find of "Abraham Lincoln" in the documents was in the context of the Abraham Lincoln School of Medicine, e.g., in trial testimony, etc. I deleted the entry from TobaccoWiki. It isn't appropriate. Thanks for the catch! Anne

Page Title
Re Hispanic issue - I know this is the title of the PM document but for anyone who comes across the page in a Google search it is a little cryptic). Perhaps a better title would indicate that it was an internal complaint about PM's marketing aimed at the Hispanic community. --Bob Burton 16:35, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Ref link
hi anne a query see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Milton_Joshua_Horowitz --Bob Burton 14:51, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Time to fill this out a little?
Anne, if you have a spare moment would you be able to fill out this stub a little Committee for Freedom of Commercial Expression - I'm just working through the leftovers from the front groups barn raising.--Bob Burton 00:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Bate page changes
Hi Anne, could you have a look through these changes. Some of them are reasonable while others seen to distance the tobacco companies from direct role in ESEF and IEA affairs. with thanks --Bob Burton 23:40, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Jacob Sullum
Could you put a brief mention on the talk page why you reverted the changes to the article? Thanks. –Rimfax 22:58, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Comment you should have a look at
Hi Anne, User:Merrell123 posted two comments that you should have alook at and respond to as appropriate. See Talk:Merrell Williams, Jr. and "Mr. Butts" documents. cheers --Bob Burton 16:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Note
Anne, I'll let you handle this one.--Bob Burton 02:57, 20 January 2009 (EST)

New page
Hi Anne, do you want to touch base with the new user who created this tobacco related page- Http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=HEN-RY, cheers --Bob Burton 03:29, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Ninja program
hi, Anne,

Just wanted to call your attention to a comment placed on Talk:Ninja Program.

-- Diane Farsetta 10:26, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Sourcewatch copyright, and Wikipedia's intended migration of license
Hi Anne,

(I also posted this to Bob Burton's page.) I can't find a suiitable forum for this, so I'm putting this on both or your talk pages.

I think it is useful to read up on Wikipedia's intended and (at present) ongoing vote to determine if its users agree with the the Wikimedia foundation to change their license to a dual licnse: Creative Commons Share Alike v. 3.0 -- and -- Gnu Free Documentaion License v. 1.2 & later versions... with intent to abandon their current Gnu Free Documentaion License v. 1.2 & later versions.

This has issues for SourceWatch for copying text from Wikipedia.

See, for a start over at Wikimedia.org:

Licensing update License Comparison Questions and Answers

This item in the questions and answers is significant for the statement that their opportunity to make the change is time limited, and therefore SourceWatch's is too.


 * Isn't the FSF granting this permission and then removing it down the line – in August 2009? Isn't that arbitrary? If migrating between licenses is a good thing, why ever put an end date on the option?


 * It helps again to refer to the Free Software Foundation's FAQ. The goal of this negotiation has not been to make it forever easy to switch among free licenses but to address the fact that the basic license for Wikipedia (and many similar wikis) is a license that was not particularly well-suited for wiki collaboration because it was developed for a different set of purposes. As the FSF FAQ puts it: "[T]his permission is no longer available after August 1, 2009. We don't want this to become a general permission to switch between licenses: the community will be much better off if each wiki makes its own decision about which license it would rather use, and sticks with that. This deadline ensures that outcome, while still offering all wiki maintainers ample time to make their decision."

-- Redtexture 22:31, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

According to the wikipedia statements about the change, the window of opportunity to change licenses closes in August 2009, and was arranged by the writer of the license that Sourcewatch uses. Apparently there has been ongoing and mutual understanding between wikipedia and the Free Software Foundation that the Gnu Free Documentation License, your current copyright license, is not that great for wikis. The links below are informative to your technical colleagues. I bring up the entire issue, because it has been possible and permissible to copy items (and citations) from Wikipedia, because the license has been the same. That will be no longer the case if and when Wikipedia migrates away. I also note that the successor to Congresspedia uses the destination Creative Commons license already.

See:
 * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html
 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#August_2009_date

Update: Wikipedia has agreed to migrate their copyright license. Sourcewatch may wish to take on the same decision See: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Result

-- Redtexture 09:48, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

PBA
Hi Anne, a new user tried to make substantial changes to the Progressive Bag Alliance page. I have reverted the changes and posted a note to the talk page but you might want to have a look at the material they tried adding to see if any of it is worth merging in with the existing page.--Bob Burton 16:44, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

INBIFO, Rylander, etc.
Hi Anne! I intended to create my own wiki to collect all the information we have accumulated in the context of the Rylander trial in Geneva. However, I think it may be better to contribute to the present wiki instead, at the cost of having to summarize a bit more. I intend to make significant update to the INBIFO article, as our Geneva trial has helped us discover and publicly exposed many new facets of INBIFO, notably, as reported in our 2004 Lancet papaer, that the PM lab had conducted secret research on sidestream smoke showing that it was much more toxic than mainstream smoke. Susan Schick has conducted an impressive systematic review of the studies done at INBIFO. Our work and hers are complementary, and this should be duly acknowledged. I will also expand the entry in Rylander and probably add an entry on the "Rylander affair". All the best, Pascal --Diethelm 07:49, 4 July 2009 (EDT)

Edit note
Hi Anne, I've just been through the Tobacco Industry Research Committee and cleaned it up -- unfortunately there were a lot of spots where references really are required. I'm not sure whether you are going to have time to do this or whether its best to shift the key unrefd material to the talk page. cheers --Bob Burton 20:12, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

about JJ
Ms Landman;

You cut out a good concise description of Just Journalism --- something that one can glean by checking their website, and by looking at the background of the principals, i.e., all of them are arch-zionist hacks. The purpose of this group is to pursue journalists seeking to get "balance", and not to "single out" Israel. So, do you want me to put a footnote for each point?

About the date of origin... JJ came to my attention right at the beginning, and the earliest entry was the date mentioned in the paragraph. Again, I simply don;t understand/accept your cutting of a paragraph the clearly points out what these people do.

--Antidotto 14:06, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Portal pages
Anne, it seems that some of the SW portal pages and sub pages are still not protected from spammers. See here.--Bob Burton 04:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

another portal page problem
See here - another spammer inserting links on an unprotected portal page.--Bob Burton 10:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

==Another spammer attack on a portal page

Anne, another one here which I have reverted. There still may be other unprotected portal pages or sub-pages.--Bob Burton 09:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Spammer attack
Hi Anne, I blocked the spammer Cowboy-marlboro but don't have time to delete their contributions. cheers --Bob Burton 12:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

SW: Sysop status?
Hi Anne

I'm a very experienced wikipedia editor who would like to assist you with this project. I've been working co-operatively with Bob Burton on the Ian Plimer article, and I was very gratified to be able to add quite a lot of info to that page that was deleted from wikipedia by paid sectional interests colluding to censor the encyclopedia.

I'm totally simpatico with everything I've seen you doing on this site. I think I could better ensure page protection, vandal control and site stability if you allowed me admin/sysop status. If you want to discuss this with me in private email, please say so. Scribe 03:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've also emailed Lisa, so if she's the person to ask, no need to reply here. Thanks. Scribe 04:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

SW: Requested edit on Tea Party movement funding
Hello, Anne. I have placed a request to correct an error on the Talk page for the article Tea Party movement funding, and since you are a Managing Editor on the site and have been the article's most recent contributor, I thought it would be best to reach out to you directly for assistance. Cheers, NMS Bill 15:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there Anne, thanks for commenting on my page. Before I move to make any edits, I wanted to run one more thing past you. That is, although I understand the preference here is to include multiple sides of a debate, and I am sure this informed your opinion about this matter, I actually don't think this is a situation where there are two opposing arguments.


 * If you look at the ThinkProgress and Media Matters sources in the existing Tea Party movement funding article, you will see that they don't actually say Koch currently gives money to FreedomWorks. Specifically, ThinkProgress merely says that FreedomWorks is "well funded" but not that it receives money from Koch now, and Media Matters notes that in 2004, CSE "split into two groups," although their database combines FreedomWorks and CSE. Searching through the Media Matters database, it shows that the Charles G. Koch Foundation hasn't given any money to "FreedomWorks" (actually CSE) since 2001.


 * It's probably worth noting that on the SourceWatch page for FreedomWorks itself, the only place where Koch appears is in the section Others formerly affiliated, which notes that David Koch was on the CSE board. He is notably absent from the FreedomWorks board there.


 * Forgive me for putting the question to you again, but I would like to know if you agree with the situation as I've laid it out. I'm certainly willing to simply add the Cohlmia / Armey statements, if upon consideration you think that is best. However, I think the record shows that the statements from Koch and from Armey are merely correcting an erroneous misconception. The sources used in the article now contain no specific claim that Koch currently funds FreedomWorks, which is why I think including the claim at all would be misleading, as it is not specifically documented. Let me know, and thanks for your time. NMS Bill 14:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Anne, not to be a bother, but I hope you can find a moment to look into this matter and let me know what you think. Thanks, NMS Bill 13:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

New page that needs some work
Anne, week or so back there was a new page created City of Playford which seems like a new good faith contribution but lacking referencing and the standard end sections/categories. --Bob Burton 20:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

SW: Another question about Tea Party movement funding article
Hello Anne, I see you did update the Tea Party movement funding page this month, which I appreciate. Reviewing the page today, I found something else which doesn't appear to be correct. Specifically:


 * Media Matters reported that David Koch of Koch Industries was a co-founder of Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), the predecessor of FreedomWorks, where he serves as chairman of the board of directors.

To my knowledge Media Matters never said this; it's certainly not in the link provided. David Koch is not a member of the FreedomWorks board. For example, he is not not listed as a member on the FreedomWorks website. However, the article is correct to say that David Koch is the chairman of the board of Americans for Prosperity Foundation (as the article does) so perhaps this is a simple mix-up. I would recommend changing the above sentence to this:


 * Media Matters reported that David Koch of Koch Industries was a co-founder of Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), the predecessor of FreedomWorks.

That's all. Let me know what you think, and if you are willing to take care of it, that would be terricic. Thanks for your consideration. NMS Bill 17:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there Anne, saw the change, thanks much! I hate to be a bother, but it's actually still not quite right. It says this at the moment: "David Koch is chairman of the board of directors of CSE." But CSE no longer exists, so that can't be. To help clarify: CSE is now FreedomWorks, and the CSE Foundation is now AFP Foundation. David is chairman of the board of AFPF. It may seem like a subtle distinction, but as written now it is inaccurate. Thanks for being patient! It's appreciated. Cheers, NMS Bill 10:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)